If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What do you find truly unfair ??

On another thread I mentioned that the provincial government insures medicine that effects a cure but doesn`t insure medicine that prevents the illness.
Not logical and not cost friendly.

More unfair is the fact that when executives of large publicly listed corporations break the law or take stupid risks, the only ones who suffer are the shareholders.
Take Wells Fargo for example. Senior executives encouraged their subordinates to partake in illegal and suspect activity. The government fines the company tens of millions of dollars. The executives don`t pay a penny and the innocent stock holders take the hit. Something is very wrong here.

They don't always get away, see the Tyco fiasco.
The prep school boy getting six months for sexual assault because of a blatantly biased judge made me sick.
Vic Toews makes me sick, social cripple and paranoid but gets appointed judge as payoff for loyalty to Tory party.

as far as rules & regulations in the USA, they make a hell of a lot more logical sense when looked at from perspective of deep-pocketed special interests

Preventive medicine is quackery according to the gatekeepers..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_PaulingNew Scientist called him one of the 20 greatest scientists of all time, and as of 2000, he was rated the 16th most important scientist in history.....
In his later years he promoted nuclear disarmament, as well as orthomolecular medicine, megavitamin therapy, and dietary supplements. None of the latter have gained acceptance in the mainstream scientific community

The law provides that shareholders can bring a shareholders derivative action against Wells Fargo and this may be coming. In effect its a claim by shareholders that the corporate entity or board of directors violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders.

Many years ago between college and graduate school I worked as a telemarketer for a publicly traded company that has since gone out of business. We were inbound telemarketers essentially trying to convince people not to cancel services they had paid for on their credit cards. Our job performance was measured based on "saves", which was not as well defined as saves in hockey but was essentially a measure for how many customers you prevented from canceling. The saves numbers the managers were looking for was totally unreasonable. Our calls were monitored and we were trained to say no 3 times before allowing a customer to cancel the service and get a credit card refund. It was a horrible job but all of us inflated our saves stats. My save percentage looked like Carey Price's but in reality I was horrible at this job. I eventually quit and went to graduate school. After managing a pizzeria and then this suck-ass job, I was very motivated to do better in life at that point.

The law provides that shareholders can bring a shareholders derivative action against Wells Fargo and this may be coming. In effect its a claim by shareholders that the corporate entity or board of directors violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders.

In most publically traded corporations the directors and executives are protected from financial loss with liability insurance paid for by the company.....ie shareholders.

In most publically traded corporations the directors and executives are protected from financial loss with liability insurance paid for by the company.....ie shareholders.

Not correct if there was intentional misconduct. Liability insurance policies insure negligence and not intentional misconduct or criminal misconduct. The layperson may assume it insures everything and it's simply not the case. This is why the Enron execs all ended up in bankruptcy court or jail or both.

I am not here to give a seminar but these are fundamental and well established legal principles.

It would be difficult to prove that the directors or even some senior officers knew that there was illegal activity going on.

The shareholders derivative suit doesn't necessarily have to prove that. They merely need to prove the fiduciary duties to shareholders were breached. The directors have a fiduciary duty that goes beyond merely having knowledge or not. It's the same as the duty of an Executor of an Estate or a Trustee. If the assets of the Estate are being squandered it matters not if the Executor knew because he has a duty to preserve the assets in the first place.

So the legal analysis is far different than what you have suggested and possible insurance coverage issues are complex and fact intensive.

It reminds me of some Probate litigation I was involved in, in which the Fiduciary of an Estate failed to either improve or market or rent unoccupied property that was a tax liability of the Estate. We filed motions with the Court claiming the Estate was being wasted, on behalf of the beneficiaries. He who has fiduciary duties may not fall asleep at the switch.

They don't always get away, see the Tyco fiasco.The prep school boy getting six months for sexual assault because of a blatantly biased judge made me sick.Vic Toews makes me sick, social cripple and paranoid but gets appointed judge as payoff for loyalty to Tory party.

Are you talking about that swimmer that was found to be raping an unconscious girl?